Three Letters of the Communist Party of India to J.V. Stalin
with the Handwritten Comments of the Soviet Leader

(14th February, 1951)

We publish this correspondence as part of the series of documents
pertaining in general to the relations between the CPSU (b) and the CPI
after 1947 and particularly the materials germane to the writing of the
programme of the CPI in 1951 after the meeting of the CPI leaders with
J.V. Stalin. Two themes are dealt with here: first, the queries of the
CPI leaders on the character, stage, tasks and strategy and tactics of
the Indian revolution after 1947 and, second, on the understanding of
the nature of partisan warfare and of individual terrorism. Both of
these range of questions retain their urgency and relevance in
contemporary India. Stalin underscored parts of the letters of the
Indian communists (these are emphasised in the text below) and gave his
comments on the questions raised in his own hand on the sides of the
documents. We advert in particular to the comment of Stalin on the
Telengana and Tripura struggles. While Rajeshwara Rao asked whether
these partisan struggles should be stopped Stalin commented in the
negative provided that the people were in favour of them.

Vijay Singh

PROGRAMME AND SEPARATE QUESTIONS

To Comrade Stalin

I
am submitting the letter in translation from English that was given on
15th February of this year by comrades Dange, Ghosh, Rao and Punaiya
addressed to the CC of VKP (b).1

To
the letter is attached a note that contains questions by Indian
comrades, and also the Programme of the Communist Party of India.

To the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)

Dear Comrades

We want to express our deeply felt gratitude to the Central Committee
of VKP (b) and to our leader comrade Stalin for their invaluable help
that they gave to us by giving clarifications on questions on which we
were groping in the dark. In his meeting with us comrade Stalin sharply
and clearly pointed out that path to us which we must choose, and the
stage, tasks, strategy and tactics of our revolution. This shall be the
strongest weapon in the hands of our Central Committee to overcome the
crisis in our party, create unity of our people and move our struggle
forward for the establishment of the leading role of the working class
in the fight against imperialism and feudalism. We are confident that
thanks to this guidance we shall be able to reconstruct our party as a
proud detachment of the international army of revolution that is
marching towards victory under the leadership of our great and astute
leader comrade Stalin.

In
order for us to properly understand the advice of comrade Stalin along
with all the consequences that flow from it, and to remove from our
understanding as well as from the understanding of our comrades in
India all confusion, we want to get further clarifications on some
theoretical and practical questions that arise in connection with the
answers of comrade Stalin to our questions. Along with it we are
enclosing some more questions of the same nature. We request you to
answer them.

We are also enclosing a draft outline2 of the programme which we have prepared. We request you to send us your criticism and suggestions about it.

From All the Four Questions:

1.
In his speech delivered at the University of the Toilers of the East in
1925 comrade Stalin, in so far as we recollect, had said that the
Indian bourgeoisie has split into reactionary and revolutionary groups
and that the reactionary bourgeoisie section, in the main, has already
come to an understanding with imperialism. In the Theses approved in
the 6th Congress of Communist International regarding colonial
countries, an observation is made about the division of the Indian
bourgeoisie in two groups comprador bourgeoisie that was
pro-imperialist, and national bourgeoisie which was ‘in opposition’
i.e. it is in indecisive and reformist opposition in relation to
imperialism, but which is opposed to every truly anti-imperialist and
anti-feudal revolutionary struggle; this bourgeoisie ‘vacillated
between imperialism and revolution’. After the ‘transfer of power’ in August 1947,3
an article published in international communist press, as also in the
documents of the Pacific Institute, gave pretext for a feeling that the
process of transition of Indian big bourgeoisie to the side of
imperialism has been completed during these days, and that this
bourgeoisie can no more play any oppositional role, that it has finally
opted for coming to an understanding with imperialism and cooperates
with them in supporting the existing social structure in India.

We consider, after our meeting with comrade Stalin that our understanding of the national4 bourgeoisie overall, is mistaken in a number of important aspects. We
fully agree with the formulation prepared by comrade Stalin that our
revolution is anti-imperialist and anti-feudal; that its sharp edge
should be directed towards the British imperialists and feudal element,
and that the slogan of nationalisation of big industry is a mistake.5 Moreover, we agree that in our agitation work we must point out that
the elimination of imperialism and feudalism would be in the interests
of all classes, including that of the national bourgeoisie.

Nevertheless with the aim of achieving theoretical clarity for our own
selves, and also so that we can to give exact answers to our comrades
in India, we desire to get short answers on the following questions.6

a) Can we say that the Indian big7
bourgeoisie has finally gone over to the side of imperialism? If this
is so, then what objective basis is there to attract it to our side or even neutralise8 some part of it?

b) Can the Indian bourgeoisie9 or any group of this bourgeoisie still be called ‘oppositional’ in terms of its relations with imperialism.

c) Does the entire
Indian big bourgeoisie or only sections of this bourgeoisie cooperate
with imperialism? If only sections then exactly which?10

d) We take our
direction from the answers of comrade Stalin that the united front
which we must try to establish is a united front of all
anti-imperialist and anti-feudal classes including the national
bourgeoisie; moreover the major foundation of this front is the union
of the working class and peasantry. Are we right?

2. What is the class nature of the present day government of Nehru? We consider that this government is the government of big business and landlords11
cooperating with imperialism and supporting feudal exploitation; this
is why this government must be replaced by a government of democratic
unity which must accomplish the tasks of anti-imperialist and
anti-feudal revolution? Are we right?12

3. (a). Comrade Stalin
pointed out that the politics of Nehru government is a manoeuvre in the
game between American and British imperialisms. Does it concerns the foreign13 policy of the Nehru government and also the question of peace?

(b). What our relations should be with concrete problems of external
politics of the Nehru government like Nehru’s speech against the use of
atom bomb, his refusal to support the American proposal for denouncing
Peoples’ China as the aggressor in Korea? Must we condemn these
manifestations of external politics of Nehru as a facetious manoeuvre
or should we support these, criticising at the same time their indecisive and insufficient character?14

(c) In our general characterisation of this government, are there any
contradictions between our limited support to the positions of the
Nehru government on some questions and our overall opposition in
relation to this government?15

Translator V. Pavlov.

Translated from English

Concerning the Question of the Partisan Struggle

Questions put forward by A. K. Ghosh and S. A. Dange

Com.
Stalin pointed out to us the big organisational significance of
partisan warfare as one armament in the arsenal of the revolutionaries
in the colonial and backward countries. We discussed the situation
formulated by him and found that on the question of the difference
between the actions of the partisans and individual terrorism
differences continue to exist between the four of us, and we
differently understood the formulations of Com. Stalin. As this
question has great theoretical and practical significance for our
struggle, we are trying to reach absolute clarity on this question.

The
question consists in the following: What are those characteristic
features of partisan actions that differentiate it from individual
terror? Following is our answer based on our understanding of the
formulations of Com. Stalin.

Firstly, in partisan actions the masses are the heroes and active
fighters. Partisan struggle develops on the basis of active support of
the people, their active participation in the struggle against the
government of landlords. This is why one can take recourse to it only
at a definite stage of the development of mass struggle in a definite
territory. Supporters of individual terror, however, act only on the
basis of mass support from the side of the people and irrespective of
that stage that has been reached by the mass struggle.

Secondly, in India the partisan formations must act together with the
mass struggle when concrete forms of it may be capture of land, refusal
to pay rent, strikes of agricultural labourers, boycott of landlords
etc. The action of the groups has the protection of the movement from
the attacks from the side of the government and landlords as its
object. Individual terror, on the other hand, does not have such
linkages with the mass movement.

Thirdly, the object of partisan actions does not consist in killing
this or that given property owner or police personnel irrespective of
the fact how much he is hated as oppressor, but in the destruction or
weakening of the forces with help of which the system of oppression is
perpetuated and oppressive measures are taken military units,
police parties, parties of internal security or armed militia of the
proprietor. If during such skirmishes between peoples’ partisan units
and the forces of the enemy, some oppressing property owners or
policemen die, then it is only for the better. However, the aim of the
partisan does not consist in the killing of this or that landlord. At
the same time the acts of individual terrorist has as their aim to kill
specific oppressor-landlord or policeman in order to terrorise other
similar elements and to teach them a lesson about what may happen to
them as well if they continue to oppress the people. The effect of the
latter type is terrorism even when such actions are taken by
formations, of which members consist of peasants members of the
party or non party activists and are taken on the requests of the
peasants themselves. Partisan actions are directed against the forces of oppressors – army units, police companies, companies of internal security, etc. while individual terror is directed against individual oppressors’, definite landlords, definite police officers or officers of the armed forces etc.

Communists support the action of partisans when the conditions are
favourable for it. They are against terrorist actions of all types.16

This
is how on the basis of our understanding of the formulations of Com.
Stalin we understood the difference between partisan action and
individual terror. We wanted to know are we right?17

Some
comrades assert that, in the regions where the mass movement has been
weakened by military terror, where military terror excludes any mass
participation in any kind of struggle, where we are too weak to attack
army or police detachments and where the landlords may return
only when supported by the armed force, in such areas secret attacks on
the most hated oppressors from amongst the landlords, taken by our
formations with the object of killing them and in this manner, hinder
others to return to oppress the people and to force the peasants out of
lands that they had earlier taken away from them, are also one of the
forms of partisan movement, that the communists may and must unleash if
this is desired by the people of the given region. I wish to know is this point of view correct.18

In
so far as it concerns other, connected with it, questions
concerning the locale of partisan struggle in the general
anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle in India, about its scale and
its limitations, about the necessity of uniting it with the actions of
the working class and with work for drawing the army to our side
then the answers of comrade Stalin removed all doubts and confusion and
we have no questions.

1. In the development
of peasant partisan war in wide areas all over the country and its
joining with the general strike of the working class, especially of
railway and other transport workers, lie the conditions for the success
of the revolution in India. Will it be correct in such a situation to start partisan war
in the given region where the conditions have ripened for it, even if
other agricultural regions have not matured for it and the workers are
not ready to support it by their own mass actions?20 This brings us to
the concrete problem that we are faced with: Should we stop the
partisan struggle that is going on in Telangana and in Tripura?21

2. Partisan struggle is
a higher form of peasant struggle in the same manner as an uprising is
a higher form of the struggle of the working class. Must we in such a
situation start partisan struggle only when the peasant struggle for
their partial demands reaches the stage of division of land and
establishment of peasant village committees? Or may we begin it even when the struggle is still in the stage of struggle for partial demands, for example, for lowering land tax?22

3. Is it possible to
conduct partisan warfare even of the most elementary type in regions
where communication is well developed?23

4. Our revolution at this stage is directed against British imperialism24 and feudalism. There are agricultural regions where capitalist
agriculture is relatively well developed and where there are
significant number of landlord-capitalists, working on hundreds of
acres, for example, four central regions of Andhra (Krishna, Guntur,
South Godavary, East Godavary), where irrigation through irrigation
canals is well developed. In these regions, families that normally have
10 to 15 acres of irrigated land do not do any physical work but get
the land worked with the help of hired labour. We think that such
families may be looked upon as families of landlord-capitalists. They
constitute 2-3% of all families that live in the villages. They do not
suffer from any form of direct feudal exploitation. They are the most
rabid enemies of agricultural workers and of backward village poor and
are most trusted supporters of the Congress government in the villages.
If their property is not taken away from them, then there shall not be
enough land for redistribution among the village poor. Will it be
correct to let the land remain with them,25 as the aim of our agrarian revolution is the destruction of feudalism?

S. Rajeshwar Rao

Endnotes:

1 Underlined by Stalin.

2 Underlined by Stalin.

3 Underlined by Stalin.

4 Underlined by Stalin.

5 Underlined and comment by Stalin at the given stage.

6 Underlined by Stalin.

7 Underlined and comment by Stalin: 'Big' insignificant part no, bourgeoisie, but not neo-bourgeoisie.

8 Underlined by Stalin.

9 Underlined and comment by Stalin It can.

10 Comment by Stalin Like this never divide in parts and parts of parts.

11 Underlined and comment by Stalin not only; they depend on group of
kulaks and on the rural capitalist-kulaks and is supported by them.

12 Comment by Stalin Over all, yes.

13 Underlined and comment by Stalin Yes.

14 Underlined and comment by Stalin Latter is true.

15 Comment by Stalin No.

16 Underlined, a small cross next to these words and commented by Stalin Communists are for terrorist
actions of the masses, but against terrorist actions of individual
revolutionaries and of persons acting outside the mass movement behind
the back of the masses. Would be appropriate to organise trials by the
masses against individual feudal elements. This usually is a better
means against individual terrorism.

17 Comment by Stalin Not on all points.

18 Underlined and comment by Stalin No.

19 Note by Stalin: Partisan movement is also rebellion; it cannot
essentially end at the same level as a rebellion of the workers.

20 Underlined by Stalin and comment Correct.

21 No, if the people want to continue the partisan struggle.

22 Underlined by Stalin and comment May be if the people want it.

23 Underlined and comment by Stalin May be, under conditions of the swelling up of the movement of the masses.

24 Underlined and comment by Stalin No! Primarily against feudalism and not against Brit.(ish) im(perial)ism.

25 Underlined and comment by Stalin If they do not support the feudal elements against the peasants then so far leave them alone. In future, if they shall support the feudals then it will be necessary to seize a large part of their lands for the peasants.

Translated from the Russian by Jaweed Ashraf. With acknowledgements to Vladimir Chechentsev.